Ferguson

[Word Nerd]

Wa Po has Dramatic graphic on how rare it is for grand juries to not indict

 

http://wapo.st/1vHOVpq

 

It is also quite rare for police officers to be indicted for deadly use of force. I don't think anyone can deny that race is a factor in this case, but the fact this officer will not be held culpable for killing someone in the line of duty is not at all unusual—it's the norm.

[Joker]

Yes, he did.  That's why he was in the neighborhood.  He was tending to another incident when the call first came through, and he actually stayed there until that situation was resolved before he came over to the store area where Brown was.  He saw Brown, then realized he fit the description of the thief and turned around.  Wilson hadn't even gotten out of his car when Brown came up to him and started harassing (and evidently, hitting) HIM while STILL IN HIS CAR.

 

In the officer's own words he states he encountered Brown by asking him and his friend to walk on the sidewalk instead of the street. He did not engage with Brown because he thought he was a robbery suspect.

[Donna A.]

I have not read all of the responses.  I am personally affected by this as I live about 10 minutes away from Ferguson. 

As I am sitting here watching the tv coverage and watching the fires and the looting, I am just sickened.  I have 4 dc and their families coming into town from 4 different areas.  Some are driving very long distances, the farthest being over 24 hours away.  It will be the first time in a few years all 10 of my dc and grandchildren will all be together.  Now I am concerned and will have to see if things calm down tomorrow to see if we should advise them not to come.  We have planned this weekend for the past 6 months.  Peaceful protests are certainly everyone's constitutional right, but this is far from peaceful.

 

:sad:   Praying for safety.  For everyone in Ferguson, not just your family. 

 

 

One would think that the black community, in Ferguson and elsewhere, would want to prove that they are NOT violent and deserving of abuse.  Instead, the rioters are just showing out of control they are.  Anger doesn't justify anything.  If a man (any man) treats his wife the way the rioters are treating those in the town of Ferguson, everyone would be demanding his head.  :(

 

And that's going to be my last post on this topic.  I'm not going to respond to any other comments or accusations.

[lovinmyboys]

 

 

Because the Prosecuting Attorney did not do his job, which is to advocate for the victim.

 

Because the Prosecuting Attorney did not recuse himself, in spite of the [url=http://www.newsweek.com/ferguson-prosecutor-ro

It was not the job of the Grand Jury to weigh the mountains of evidence. Their job was to see if there was probable cause for a trial. The fact that an unarmed man was shot six times, twice in the head, was probable cause for a trial. The DA didn't want an indictment. He protected the officer because of his Daddy. It was not justice.

This isn't all that unusual in officer involved shootings. I mentioned up thread that an officer in my town was just not indicted for shooting an unarmed person. I agree this prosecuter should have recused himself, but it is not at all unusual to not get an indictment in these cases. The bar is so high. The prosecuter would have to prove that a reasonable person knowing only what he would know at the time would not feel like his life is in danger.

 

I don't really like that I am on here defending Wilson/the prosecuter because there is a lot I didn't agree with. The prosecuter should have recused himself but I don't think it would have changed the outcome. As far as Wilson, I doubt he will ever work as a police officer again. He obviously should have handled the situation better. It's easy to say that as I sit on my couch.

 

We need to change the way law enforcement interacts with the community. Lots if things need to change. I just don't think Wilson should be used as an example or a scapegoat. He likely acted within the law...even if that law needs to change.

[SKL]

I'll just say some of the comments here are inflammatory.  Nobody was killed for blocking traffic.  Possibly some people are going to be killed because of people repeatedly saying stuff like that.  (I hope not.)

[Pawz4me]

ETA: Basically, I'm saying here that part of the problem (which is BY FAR not the whole problem) is a militarization of police forces *without* the appropriate military training on how to act within a civilian population, without strict rules about when to use various levels of force. That is a recipe for disaster, chaos, oppression and rebellion.

 

:iagree: :iagree:

 

Not to downplay Brown's murder at all, but the above is such a worrisome issue.  My own county sheriffs department -- a county that is suburban/rural, mostly upper to middle class and on the whole a very peaceful place -- has a tank.  The sheriff has said it's a good "psychological weapon."

[Serenade]

This is what I read in the news this morning:

 

Wilson told jurors that he initially encountered Brown and a friend walking in a street and, when he told them to move to a sidewalk, Brown responded with an expletive. Wilson then noticed that Brown had a handful of cigars, "and that's when it clicked for me," he said, referring to a radio report minutes earlier of a robbery at a nearby convenience store.

 

Wilson said he asked a dispatcher to send additional police, and then backed his vehicle up in front of Brown and his friend. As he tried to open the door, Wilson said Brown slammed it back shut.

 

The officer said he pushed Brown with the door and Brown hit him in the face. Wilson told grand jurors he was thinking: "What do I do not to get beaten inside my car."

 

"I drew my gun," Wilson told the grand jury. "I said, 'Get back or I'm going to shoot you.'

 

"He immediately grabs my gun and says, 'You are too much of a pussy to shoot me,'" Wilson told grand jurors. He said Brown grabbed the gun with his right hand, twisted it and "digs it into my hip."

 

Asked why he felt the need to pull his gun, Wilson told grand jurors he was concerned another punch to his face could "knock me out or worse."

 

After shots were fired in the vehicle, Brown fled and Wilson gave chase. At some point, Brown turned around to face the officer.

 

Witness accounts were conflicted about whether Brown walked, stumbled or charged back toward Wilson before he was fatally wounded, McCulloch said. There were also differing accounts of how or whether Brown's hands were raised. His body fell about 153 feet from Wilson's vehicle.

 

Read more at http://www.wral.com/with-no-indictment-chaos-fills-ferguson-streets/14218512/#xtYRjlSPr3i88OVj.99

 

It sounds like Brown and his friend were walking in the street, not crossing it, when Wilson told them to move to the sidewalk. This sounds like a reasonable request from the police. Brown cursed at the officer. And that's when Wilson saw cigars and realized this was the person described on the radio for robbing a store, and that's when Wilson took action. Prior to this, he had only asked Brown to walk on the sidewalk, rather than in the street.

 

I guess I'm having a really hard time seeing how Wilson did not act appropriately. When he realized there was a good chance that Brown was the robber described on the radio, he called for back-up, and then moved his car to block Brown. When he tried to get out of the car, Brown slammed the door shut on him. When he tried to get out again, Brown hit him in the face. Why should Wilson not draw his gun at this point? He had been assaulted by this guy that matched the description of someone who had just robbed a store. Brown GRABBED Wilson's gun. He grabbed a police officer's gun! Wilson then shoots, totally appropriately, IMO. Brown runs and Wilson gives chase. Should he not have? Should he have declined to pursue a probable convenience store robber who had just hit him in the face and grabbed for his gun? At some point, Brown turns back and moves toward Wilson -- the article is unclear whether he stumbled, walked or ran, but he turned back toward the the officer. Whether or not his hands were raised is in question. But he was turning back towards the officer, according to this report, and I think it was reasonable that Wilson thought he should defend himself.

 

I don't know where in this scenario Wilson acted inappropriately, unless it was when he chose to follow a likely robber who had just assaulted him. Perhaps he should have waited for back-up to pursue. I wonder what the police department rules are regarding this.

[SKL]

I think the media should be penalized in some way for inciting riot.  SInce it is unconstitutional for them to be punished for saying whatever they want to say, at least we should not reward them by letting them get rich off others' misery in this case.  How can we boycott them ....

[zoobie]

:sad: Praying for safety. For everyone in Ferguson, not just your family.

 

 

One would think that the black community, in Ferguson and elsewhere, would want to prove that they are NOT violent and deserving of abuse. Instead, the rioters are just showing out of control they are. Anger doesn't justify anything. If a man (any man) treats his wife the way the rioters are treating those in the town of Ferguson, everyone would be demanding his head. :(

 

And that's going to be my last post on this topic. I'm not going to respond to any other comments or accusations.

The rioters and looters are not "the black community."

[Shellydon]

This is what I read in the news this morning:

 

 

 

Read more at http://www.wral.com/with-no-indictment-chaos-fills-ferguson-streets/14218512/#xtYRjlSPr3i88OVj.99

 

It sounds like Brown and his friend were walking in the street, not crossing it, when Wilson told them to move to the sidewalk. This sounds like a reasonable request from the police. Brown cursed at the officer. And that's when Wilson saw cigars and realized this was the person described on the radio for robbing a store, and that's when Wilson took action. Prior to this, he had only asked Brown to walk on the sidewalk, rather than in the street.

 

I guess I'm having a really hard time seeing how Wilson did not act appropriately. When he realized there was a good chance that Brown was the robber described on the radio, he called for back-up, and then moved his car to block Brown. When he tried to get out of the car, Brown slammed the door shut on him. When he tried to get out again, Brown hit him in the face. Why should Wilson not draw his gun at this point? He had been assaulted by this guy that matched the description of someone who had just robbed a store. Brown GRABBED Wilson's gun. He grabbed a police officer's gun! Wilson then shoots, totally appropriately, IMO. Brown runs and Wilson gives chase. Should he not have? Should he have declined to pursue a probable convenience store robber who had just hit him in the face and grabbed for his gun? At some point, Brown turns back and moves toward Wilson -- the article is unclear whether he stumbled, walked or ran, but he turned back toward the the officer. Whether or not his hands were raised is in question. But he was turning back towards the officer, according to this report, and I think it was reasonable that Wilson thought he should defend himself.

 

I don't know where in this scenario Wilson acted inappropriately, unless it was when he chose to follow a likely robber who had just assaulted him. Perhaps he should have waited for back-up to pursue. I wonder what the police department rules are regarding this.

 

I agree with you.  If someone hit me, cursed me and threatened me, I would use whatever force necessary to get that person to stop.  It is amazing we have people willing to be police officers at all. 

[SKL]

It's a good thing I am not a cop in Ferguson, because I would have been afraid to respond to the rioting/looting/vandalism last night.  I would feel like a huge target.

[umsami]

This is what I read in the news this morning:

 

 

 

Read more at http://www.wral.com/with-no-indictment-chaos-fills-ferguson-streets/14218512/#xtYRjlSPr3i88OVj.99

 

It sounds like Brown and his friend were walking in the street, not crossing it, when Wilson told them to move to the sidewalk. This sounds like a reasonable request from the police. Brown cursed at the officer. And that's when Wilson saw cigars and realized this was the person described on the radio for robbing a store, and that's when Wilson took action. Prior to this, he had only asked Brown to walk on the sidewalk, rather than in the street.

 

I guess I'm having a really hard time seeing how Wilson did not act appropriately. When he realized there was a good chance that Brown was the robber described on the radio, he called for back-up, and then moved his car to block Brown. When he tried to get out of the car, Brown slammed the door shut on him. When he tried to get out again, Brown hit him in the face. Why should Wilson not draw his gun at this point? He had been assaulted by this guy that matched the description of someone who had just robbed a store. Brown GRABBED Wilson's gun. He grabbed a police officer's gun! Wilson then shoots, totally appropriately, IMO. Brown runs and Wilson gives chase. Should he not have? Should he have declined to pursue a probable convenience store robber who had just hit him in the face and grabbed for his gun? At some point, Brown turns back and moves toward Wilson -- the article is unclear whether he stumbled, walked or ran, but he turned back toward the the officer. Whether or not his hands were raised is in question. But he was turning back towards the officer, according to this report, and I think it was reasonable that Wilson thought he should defend himself.

 

I don't know where in this scenario Wilson acted inappropriately, unless it was when he chose to follow a likely robber who had just assaulted him. Perhaps he should have waited for back-up to pursue. I wonder what the police department rules are regarding this.

 

 

First off, all of that is Wilson's testimony.  How much is true...who knows.  But let's assume it's all true.  Yes, he has a right to defend himself.  But does he have a right to kill an unarmed man?  Remember, police officers are supposed to be excellent shots.... extremely well trained.  So why the two shots to the head.  They were both 6'4" men.  Brown outweighed him, yes, but Wilson had the gun...the entire time.   He shot him six times (well fired 12 shots, but hit him six times.) The two fatal ones were to the head.  Shoot to disable, but not to kill.  No reason to shoot him in the head.  And those were shots fired from far away (according to the autopsies.)

 

If Wilson had shot Brown in the legs, and Brown had died from loss of blood, it would not be as questionable to me as the shots to the head.  The only reason you shoot somebody in the head is to kill them.  Period.  The other man was unarmed.  If he had been armed, he would have shot at Wilson.  

 

There should have been a trial, with a real prosecutor who advocated for the victim, and a real defense attorney who advocated for the police officer.  There was not.  The Prosecutor never advocated for the victim, never made his case for the victim.   He was, in reality, a defense attorney for Officer Wilson.  He did not do his job.

[Miss Peregrine]

In the officer's own words he states he encountered Brown by asking him and his friend to walk on the sidewalk instead of the street. He did not engage with Brown because he thought he was a robbery suspect.

From the randomly selected witness statements I read he backed up his car with a few seconds of the first contact. He had realized that he was matched the description of the suspect.

[Slojo]

Grand Jury decision aside, someone help me understand how relations between residents and police are supposed to improve by looting and arson. 

 

Let me say this unequivocally. They are not going to improve by looting and arson. Which is why the vast majority of individuals were not involved in looting. Let's employ the Venn Diagram here - looters does not have complete overlap with residents. First the universe of looters would be a very small circle compared the universe of residents. Second, the very small circle that is looters would have only a small area that would overlap with residents - so small that it might be difficult to notice any overlap at all. 

 

That is reverse racism at its finest.... assuming what I know and don't know just because I'm not black.  I've studied history, and I have many black friends.  

 

And if that's true, that the black population generally knows NOT to engage with a police officer, then why do so many do it?  What do you think it is when hundreds or even thousands of black people incite violence with their rioting, beatings, looting, and burning buildings?  And why did Michael Brown approach Wilson's police car and begin attacking him?  I hardly call them "not engaging in any way". 

 

My black friends are appalled and humiliated by all this.  The Michael Brown supporters/rioters/inciters of violence do NOT represent them.  :(

 

In OUR city, the black population is calling for PEACEFUL protests.  That is NOT what's happening in Ferguson.

 

Again, let's make sure that we are all applying the common definition to the word "generally" - which means "in most cases, usually" or "the expected state of things, without regard to exceptions."  Yes, I and others are saying that the general response of the 35 million + African Americans in this country is to know NOT to engage with the police. As far as the news reports have gone, there were relatively few people on the street when the buildings were being burned - suggests a small minority of offenders. Hundreds or even thousands -- unless you are suggesting that EVERY SINGLE person protesting last night was indeed a looter -- does not seem fair minded. Even if it were, and you were to extrapolate that into the GENERAL African American population -- let's say, 1000 people were directly participated in looting, burning and rioting (again, hoping you can make a distinction between constitutional right to protest and rioting -- the latter of which happens between 3 - 10 times a year at or around sporting events attended largely by young white people after -- not for someone being shot dead -- but rather the results of a sporting event (but I digress).  Let's assume that the looting and rioting would be most likely to happen in 80 metropolitan areas that have at least 15% black residents and where the vast majority of African Americans live.  Okay - 1000 potential rioters in any given metropolitan area (using your "hundreds and thousands" metric - though, admittedly, I'm not sure where you are getting that from) = roughly 80,000 people. That's .00228571 of the "black community."  Could that be right - not even registering 1%?  Yes, I am going to maintain that GENERALLY speaking, the black community knows not to engage with a police officer and GENERALLY speaking, the vast majority have no part in rioting or looting. Please don't make generalizations about the black community or hide behind your relationships with black friends to defend your generalizations. 

 

The rioters and looters are not "the black community."

Yes, please refer to the above commentary. 

 

:sad:   Praying for safety.  For everyone in Ferguson, not just your family. 

 

 

One would think that the black community, in Ferguson and elsewhere, would want to prove that they are NOT violent and deserving of abuse.  Instead, the rioters are just showing out of control they are.  Anger doesn't justify anything.  If a man (any man) treats his wife the way the rioters are treating those in the town of Ferguson, everyone would be demanding his head.  :(

 

And that's going to be my last post on this topic.  I'm not going to respond to any other comments or accusations.

"The black community" has proven, time and again, that they are not violent and deserving of abuse. Individual black people may or may not engage in acts of violence (as is the case for individual white people and we don't seem to call the white community to account for those acts), but by and large, the black community is not "deserving of abuse." Any one who really thinks that, needs to stop and consider. I'm sorry you are no longer willing to respond. Asking you to apply a bit of rigor to you thinking is not an accusation. The "black community" has been accused with quite a broad brush in some of the comments here. What an opportunity we have to thoughtfully consider the legitimate perspectives of others. I hope you stay in the dialogue. 

[BarbecueMom]

First off, all of that is Wilson's testimony. How much is true...who knows. But let's assume it's all true. Yes, he has a right to defend himself. But does he have a right to kill an unarmed man? Remember, police officers are supposed to be excellent shots.... extremely well trained. So why the two shots to the head. They were both 6'4" men. Brown outweighed him, yes, but Wilson had the gun...the entire time. He shot him six times (well fired 12 shots, but hit him six times.) The two fatal ones were to the head. Shoot to disable, but not to kill. No reason to shoot him in the head. And those were shots fired from far away (according to the autopsies.)

 

If Wilson had shot Brown in the legs, and Brown had died from loss of blood, it would not be as questionable to me as the shots to the head. The only reason you shoot somebody in the head is to kill them. Period. The other man was unarmed. If he had been armed, he would have shot at Wilson.

 

There should have been a trial, with a real prosecutor who advocated for the victim, and a real defense attorney who advocated for the police officer. There was not. The Prosecutor never advocated for the victim, never made his case for the victim.

Correction, the only reason you shoot is to kill, period. There is no shooting the arms hoping they'll drop the knife, or taking out the legs so they don't charge. When an officer fires at a vehicle, he's trying to take out the driver. Shooting out tires is a movie thing.

 

I really do not want police officers pulling out guns to shoot at limbs. The chance of hitting a bystander increases, as does the number of situations where it's okay to pull out a weapon. We need to decrease the number of situations where guns are drawn, not add to them.

[SKL]

Clearly some of the people here have already decided the officer is guilty of murder before seeing any evidence.  That is not our job.  We were not there.  The Grand Jury had the job of deciding whether there was enough evidence to prosecute.  Had they said "yes, there is enough evidence to prosecute," there would have been a trial.  The officer may still have been found not guilty by a jury trial.  Then there still would have been riots.  There still would have been people on this board (and elsewhere) shocked because they already decided on day 1 that this was cold-blooded murder.  They will believe this until their dying day.  Why bother with a trial?

[Serenade]

Correction, the only reason you shoot is to kill, period. There is no shooting the arms hoping they'll drop the knife, or taking out the legs so they don't charge. When an officer fires at a vehicle, he's trying to take out the driver. Shooting out tires is a movie thing.

 

This is what I always heard, too.

 

I googled it because I was curious, and it seems to indeed be the case.

 

Here is an interesting article discussing "shoot to kill" policies and why.

 

From the article

 

""If you only seek to wound someone by shooting, you do not have justification to shoot at all," Jirasek said. "An attempt to shoot to wound all too often can end up in death. It does no good if a police officer says, 'I was just trying to wound and ended up killing somebody,' because that officer now faces criminal prosecution, not to mention a civil lawsuit. And the law will say the officer better be justified in using deadly force."

 

I am one who feels that the officer did, indeed, have justification to shoot, so naturally, he would shoot to kill.

 

The only question that remains in my mind is whether or not he should have pursued Brown at all, when Brown fled.   Wilson was entirely justified to shoot Brown when Brown reached for Wilson's gun.  And when Wilson chose to pursue Brown, and Brown turned and came toward him, it seems like given the fact that Brown had already tried to take his gun, it was reasonable to think that Wilson felt threatened enough to shoot.

 

 

 

[Susan in MO]

This is what has been rambling inside of my head...

 

I've been asking myself what I would do, think, feel if this was one of my boys. Also, what would I feel and do in the officers place.

 

First, obviously,  I would be heartbroken that I lost my child.

 

Second, I would be appalled that my child was a thief, and disrespectful of both the Law and Law enforcement.  

 

Third, I would question the use of such excessive force on my child.  Was it warranted?  In the car, yes I think so.  How dare my son attack another human!  The officer surely feared for his life.  What about out of the car?  I wish the officer didn't persue....but he did.  How would I feel if a 300 lb man was coming at me like a linebacker?  Yes, I think I would defend myself.   

 

As a parent, I wouldn't like the results, but I would understand them.  My boy would have been wrong.   He set this scenario in motion.  Every action he chose led to this.  He could have stopped this at any time.  He was in the wrong.  He was acting like a tug.  

 

Then, I would want to start a conversation.  I would say that I wish the officer would have waited for backup, instead of pursuing.  I wish that he (the officer) wasn't alone in his car.  Why isn't two officers mandatory?  What could have been done differently to have changed the results?  What can we do as parents to help?  What can we do as a community to help?  Why are news networks allowed to incite people with misinformation?  Why is it important for our news networks and our politicians to divide us?  Is it so they can conquer us?  etc...

 

This is a truly so sad.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[lovinmyboys]

As has been mentioned, officers aren't legally allowed to shoot to injure, so Wilson couldn't legally do that. Also, from the outside, the initial encounter (jaywalking) seems really minor to us. However, besides domestic violence calls, relatively minor stops where the person who is stopped has done something else illegal (whether the cop knows about it or not) are one of the most dangerous times for police officers. The cop thinks it is a routine stop, and it can really spiral out of control quickly. In cases like the mass shooting at the movie theater, police officers lives generally are not in as much danger and they at least know the situation a little before responding. Most routine stops are routine, but they can also be one of the most likely times for an officer to be killed. Hopefully they are well trained enough to make the right choices even in those circumstances, but obviously mistakes happen.

[ktgrok]

This is what I read in the news this morning:

 

the article is unclear whether he stumbled, walked or ran, but he turned back toward the the officer. Whether or not his hands were raised is in question. But he was turning back towards the officer, according to this report, and I think it was reasonable that Wilson thought he should defend himself.

 

I don't know where in this scenario Wilson acted inappropriately, unless it was when he chose to follow a likely robber who had just assaulted him. Perhaps he should have waited for back-up to pursue. I wonder what the police department rules are regarding this.

 

What on earth did Wilson think would happen when he chased him? Isn't the goal to have the guy stop running, put his hands up, and give up? And IF that is what happened, why did Wilson still shoot him? That is the part that needs to be clarified by a full trial. 

 

If Wilson was going to shoot him no matter what, once he started running, then that needs to be addressed, and policy changes made. but if the goal was for the guy to stop running (he did) and return to the officer for frisking/arrest...and IF that is what happened, then did the officer just panic? We don't know. We needed a full trial.

 

Saying "well he was moving towards the cop" is not enough. It MATTERS if he was walking with hands up versus charging. 

[lovinmyboys]

What on earth did Wilson think would happen when he chased him? Isn't the goal to have the guy stop running, put his hands up, and give up? And IF that is what happened, why did Wilson still shoot him? That is the part that needs to be clarified by a full trial.

 

If Wilson was going to shoot him no matter what, once he started running, then that needs to be addressed, and policy changes made. but if the goal was for the guy to stop running (he did) and return to the officer for frisking/arrest...and IF that is what happened, then did the officer just panic? We don't know. We needed a full trial.

 

Saying "well he was moving towards the cop" is not enough. It MATTERS if he was walking with hands up versus charging.

I agree with this. I'm not sure why he pursued him, or what Wilson expected brown to do to surrender without turning around (although I think I saw testimony that he was telling him to get on the ground).

 

I don't think there is enough evidence for a criminal conviction even if Wilson should have done better. I don't think he was being malicious and I don't think giving him a trial would have fixed anything. I don't even think a trial would have given us better information. I could be wrong.

 

Eta: a trial is to see if he committed a crime. Based on the law, there is vey little evidence he committed one. A trial is not to determine if he should have pursued or not, made better or different choices, etc.

[flyingiguana]

My lawyer buddy down the block has told me he doesn't see that the grand jury really had much choice in their decision -- given current laws.

 

But I'm not sure how changing laws is going to help.  Are we going to change laws so that police are never able to defend themselves?  Good luck keeping police on the force with that.

 

There is also discussion about why the cop followed what he now knew to be a felon.  There are people saying, well, he should have called for back up.  He should have waited for help. 

 

And yet -- he apparently did radio for help.  But the help wasn't there yet.  And he was watching an accused felon who had already beat him (the officer) and possibly tried to shoot him (with the officer's gun) walk off into a neighborhood where he was likely to try the same thing on some innocent bystander.  (And remember that he had just assaulted someone before the police found him).

 

Sure, it's easy for us  -- most of us, I assume, are not police -- to say, oh, yeah, just wait and let things cool down.  But that police officer was making split second decisions -- and one of them likely was that this guy was a homicide waiting to happen.  If the police officer DIDN'T try to stop him right then, he would not have been doing his job.  And the kid was likely to go on and assault someone else. 

 

So he tried to stop him WITHOUT deadly force.  But, in the officer's mind, the kid came after him -- with deadly force.

 

So -- unless there is good evidence that the police officer was lying, that doesn't seem like enough evidence to convict him of murder or manslaughter.  He was doing his job by confronting -- but then had to defend himself.

 

The grand jury isn't there to fix racism.  It's there to decide if there is a reasonable amount of evidence to get a conviction.  In this case, no, there just isn't.  This may have to do with the presentation of the case to the grand jury, but I'm kind of suspecting not.

 

It may look highly unusual to have a grand jury not recommend a trial -- but it is entirely possible that this case only got to the grand jury because of the publicity.  In other words -- no one may ever have thought there was enough evidence, but they wanted to go through at least some due process so the decision would be made by a body that was not part of the police force.

 

In the state I'm in, there have been something like 20 deaths of civilians that may have been caused by police officers in the past decade or so.  Several have been shootings.  Most were white people getting killed by white cops.  A few were a different mix of races.  None went to trial.  I don't know that any even went to a grand jury.  (I'd post it, but I can't find the article anymore)

 

 

[marbel]

What on earth did Wilson think would happen when he chased him? Isn't the goal to have the guy stop running, put his hands up, and give up? And IF that is what happened, why did Wilson still shoot him? That is the part that needs to be clarified by a full trial. 

 

If Wilson was going to shoot him no matter what, once he started running, then that needs to be addressed, and policy changes made. but if the goal was for the guy to stop running (he did) and return to the officer for frisking/arrest...and IF that is what happened, then did the officer just panic? We don't know. We needed a full trial.

 

Saying "well he was moving towards the cop" is not enough. It MATTERS if he was walking with hands up versus charging. 

 

I'm not sure it matters.   If a cop yells "stop" I believe the right thing to do is stop and put hands up.  Or, get on the ground if that is what the officer is saying to do.  I think turning around and moving toward the cop, even with hands up, could be seen as aggressive, particularly in a situation where the person has already acted aggressively.   If the person is walking up to the officer, and the officer relaxes, the person could suddenly rush him and grab the gun. 

 

Actually I'd be interested in hearing from more knowledgeable people if I am correct or not.  But it makes more sense to me to stop rather than turn and go back toward the cop.

 

[flyingiguana]

What on earth did Wilson think would happen when he chased him? Isn't the goal to have the guy stop running, put his hands up, and give up? And IF that is what happened, why did Wilson still shoot him? That is the part that needs to be clarified by a full trial. 

 

If Wilson was going to shoot him no matter what, once he started running, then that needs to be addressed, and policy changes made. but if the goal was for the guy to stop running (he did) and return to the officer for frisking/arrest...and IF that is what happened, then did the officer just panic? We don't know. We needed a full trial.

 

Saying "well he was moving towards the cop" is not enough. It MATTERS if he was walking with hands up versus charging. 

 

If you look at some of the testimony that is coming out, the story that the grand jury probably believed was that Brown was not just moving towards the cop.  It's not clear if he was putting up his hands to surrender (according to some witnesses) or to come after the cop again (according to the cop and (I think?) other witnesses).  The fact that the cop was a lot closer to what was happening is probably also part of the equation -- also he knew the prior history of Brown in the minutes preceding.

 

The grand jury seems to have gone with the latter interpretation.  My guess is that most of us would have too, if we'd been given the same evidence, presented the same way, and with the same laws to follow. 

 

It looks to me that all the relevant evidence should have come out during the grand jury.  If it did not, then the problem is fixing or hiding of evidence.  Which would have continued in a jury trial as well.

 

And it's perfectly obvious what Wilson thought he was doing chasing Brown down -- he was trying to keep him from assaulting anyone else.

 

He was doing his job.

 

I'm not a big police defender.  I think they do some wacky things sometimes.  And they can get cocky and think they're above the law.  And treat a community badly.  BUT in this instance, I can't see anything other than a cop trying to protect other people and then trying to defend himself.

 

Unless, as I've already stated, someone is lying.

 

[SKL]

This is what has been rambling inside of my head...

 

I've been asking myself what I would do, think, feel if this was one of my boys. Also, what would I feel and do in the officers place.

 

First, obviously,  I would be heartbroken that I lost my child.

 

Second, I would be appalled that my child was a thief, and disrespectful of both the Law and Law enforcement.  

 

Third, I would question the use of such excessive force on my child.  Was it warranted?  In the car, yes I think so.  How dare my son attack another human!  The officer surly feared for his life.  What about out of the car?  I wish the officer didn't peruse....but he did.  How would I feel if a 300 lb man was coming at me like a linebacker?  Yes, I think I would defend myself.   

 

As a parent, I wouldn't like the results, but I would understand them.  My boy would have been wrong.   He set this scenario in motion.  Every action he chose led to this.  He could have stopped this at any time.  He was in the wrong.  He was acting like a tug.  

 

Then, I would want to start a conversation.  I would say that I wish the officer would have waited for backup, instead of pursuing.  I wish that he (the officer) wasn't alone in his car.  Why isn't two officers mandatory?  What could have been done differently to have changed the results?  What can we do as parents to help?  What can we do as a community to help?  Why are news networks allowed to incite people with misinformation?  Why is it important for our news networks and our politicians to divide us?  Is it so they can conquer us?  etc...

 

This is a truly so sad.  

 

A while back, someone linked an article where it was said that basically black people teach their kids to believe cops will kill them for nothing, and that they should fight the cops if they want any chance to come out alive.  That's what the article (written by a black parent and with lots of corroborating quotes and approving comments from black parents) said.  I am not saying I believe this speaks for all black parents; I'm sure it does not; but it seems it is a rather common view.

 

I have no idea what messages Mr. Brown heard while growing up.

 

The way people talk about this case will also help determine how many future children are taught to resist and fight the cops in order to avoid being shot like a dog.  In short, I don't see the practice ending any time soon.

[momacacia]

I wasn't going to comment but this quote is amazing on so many levels.  I am going to assume that you are not black because if you were, you would know that black and brown kids for generations are taught not engage in any way with police officers.  I live in a predominately white neighborhood and every time we see a police officer, we do not engage in any way.  My kids know not to even say hi unless they say hi first.  That is the reality that I live in and the reality that many black/brown families live in.  This is called survival.  So no, this hypothetical world of your doesn't exist for the majority of black/brown kids.      

 

So what is going to happen to a black or brown child who makes eye contact and smiles and waves at a police officer? What if they all started doing that--just generally being pleasant, even going up and thanking them for their service? Would things change? I'm sure on some level they wouldn't, but if they all started doing this generationally...?

 

When police drive through our neighborhood (predominantly white, with some black/brown families), we smile and wave and teach our kids to do so. It's presumed, because we are law-abiding citizens, that they are driving through to keep us safe, not coming to get us, so we have no need to keep our heads down. I realize the black/brown community is more likely to be profiled, especially in higher crime areas, but I have to wonder if just a simple change toward law enforcement might change some things.

 

And is this only for white police officers, what about black/brown officers? I'm assuming they're treated the same way? So maybe it's not a racial thing, but a status or authority/citizen type of thing.

[SKL]

I am also surprised people are saying the cop should not have pursued Brown.  What is the police force for if they are not allowed to pursue a criminal who is fleeing the scene of multiple serious, violent crimes?  What are the chances Brown would have been apprehended if the officer had just let him run away?

[flyingiguana]

I'll add that if the police don't do their jobs, they'll be accused of letting some neighborhoods slide into anarchy.  And that will probably also result in a charge of racism.

[livetoread]

I think it is unfortunate that this was the case that drew so much attention to the very real problem of racism in police/community interactions, especially in certain areas. From all I have read, I think it's quite possible that the officer was justified in shooting him (though whether he still should have been indicted is a messy thing indeed). Thinking he was justified makes it easier to dismiss those who are trying to call attention to the problem. I know no one can pick and choose which scenario will capture our attention, but I still wish it wasn't this one.

[umsami]

This is an interesting article on why it's not a surprise that the grand jury didn't indict Wilson

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/11/24/surprise-ferguson-grand-jury-didn-indict-police-officer/zf9Un1ZTqrEKKzTgOOJBOL/story.html

 

Here is an article about the pattern of excessive force used by Ferguson's police http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/at-least-6-ferguson-officers-apart-from-brown-shooter-have-been-named-in-lawsuits/2014/08/30/535f7142-2c96-11e4-bb9b-997ae96fad33_story.html

 

 

From the comments on they should not shoot to disable, only to kill....I actually find that very troubling.  If that is the case, then there must be a much higher bar when confronting a known unarmed man.  One would assume that nonlethal means must be tried first.  The fact that Wilson chose not to carry a taser because it was uncomfortable for him is a wimpy excuse.  I'm sorry.  Is his gun uncomfortable too?  How much training is given using his baton. Do they get the same training as officers in the UK who seem to actually know how to use nonlethal force?  

 

The Brown family continues to impress me, as I don't think I'd be that calm.  They're asking for the Michael Brown Jr. law to be enacted which will require all officers to wear body cameras.  I think that's actually a really good idea.  

[mommymilkies]

And they previously arrested and shot at University professors and clergy outside protesting and caring for people's wounds and injuries. They've literally dumped tear gas into residential back yards before. Who is getting arrested and who is causing damage are not the same, it has never been, why ignore the voices of local businesses and people over the police?. There were literally KKK members and Neo Nazis groups out last night harming protesters, there are videos and photos of it, how many do we think got arrested? Cause I haven't heard of one (not surprising since at least a few of them are also members of the police force).

 

The evidence presented to the Grand Jury is all available here: http://apps.stlpublicradio.org/ferguson-project/evidence.html

 

All evidence shows that there was a close minor altercation at first, then Michael Brown ran away and then knelt down with his arms up. Fearing from one life from someone running away just doesn't pass. The fact the Chief has stated that Wilson will be getting his job back prior to the results coming out shows what little he thinks of the death of Michael Brown. Michael Brown's body was left out for four hours (and there are photos of Wilson standing over the body which showed at least one police witness lied) - that is a message. If someone can shoot up a movie theatre and kill 12 people without being shot and brought in peacefully, if escaped convicts can be brought in peacefully, why not Michael Brown? Or John Crawford? Or the other hundreds of people?

 

The fact that someone whose death was ruled a homicide doesn't even deserve to have the shooter go to trial and that this is happening over and over again. Michael Brown's family doesn't even get a trial. John Crawford's family doesn't get a trial for being shot while holding a BB gun in a store that sells BB guns in an open carry state on camera that has had open carry protests of families going into such stories with automatic weapons without police intervention or violence - Crawford's child will never know him and his family is told that it isn't worth going to trial. Tamir Rice's family is likely not going to get it either when their 12 year old gets shot by police for playing with a toy gun in an open carry state -- and the 911 call recording shows that the dispatcher asked twice if the person holding the gun was black or white. There is an obvious pattern here and to ignore it is disingenuous.  An unarmed black person is killed in US on average every 36 hours. This isn't black people provoking anything, no one is provoking white police officers to shoot them. John Crawford was literally leaning on the BB gun with a phone on his hand, Tamir Rice was singing on the swings when police arrived, Michael Brown was walking home with a friend. it's a system that is built to do this and needs to be properly dealt with and until it is these things will keep happening. The world looks on, people around the world have joined together in solidarity, governments around the world have called for restraint and justice, and yet the system that thrives on this still gets supported unchallenged, without trial. 

:iagree:   I want to like this post 100x. 

 

This is your evidence that Wilson didn't know Brown was the robber?  First of all, CNN is one of the liberal media darlings that propogated this whole mess in the first place.  Secondly, the date of that article is August 15th -- LONG before all the evidence was in.  On August 15th, there was a LOT of hearsay floating around. 

 

And people who continue to spread the lies and hearsay from liberal news articles dated three months ago are part of the problem, contributing to the ongoing anger, hated, violence, and (often) false accusations of racism.

 

Ahhhh that liberal news.  Always lying to us and making us hate the white man. 

That is reverse racism at its finest.... assuming what I know and don't know just because I'm not black.  I've studied history, and I have many black friends.  

 

And if that's true, that the black population generally knows NOT to engage with a police officer, then why do so many do it?  What do you think it is when hundreds or even thousands of black people incite violence with their rioting, beatings, looting, and burning buildings?  And why did Michael Brown approach Wilson's police car and begin attacking him?  I hardly call them "not engaging in any way". 

 

My black friends are appalled and humiliated by all this.  The Michael Brown supporters/rioters/inciters of violence do NOT represent them.  :(

 

In OUR city, the black population is calling for PEACEFUL protests.  That is NOT what's happening in Ferguson.

Totally.  I'm also not racist because I have black friends.   :001_rolleyes:

[poppy]

It's a good thing I am not a cop in Ferguson, because I would have been afraid to respond to the rioting/looting/vandalism last night. I would feel like a huge target.

One thing this story has made very clear is that to many people of color - this is how they feel sending their kids out into the world every day. Fear that they are targets who can be killed by police or armed Zimmeman types without consequence.

[SKL]

One thing this story has made very clear is that to many people of color - this is how they feel sending their kids out into the world every day. Fear that they are targets who can be killed by police or armed Zimmeman types without consequence.

 

Or far more likely, killed by a black person.

 

If your child is killed, does it hurt worse depending on the skin color of who killed him?  Should it?

[SKL]

Yes, I agree with the idea of body cameras.  On cops everywhere.  I hope it is affordable.

[hornblower]

The idea that CNN is the liberal media darling.... Wow, I just can't even.....
 

[GailV]

Michael Brown's family response shows so much class.  https://twitter.com/MoveOn/status/537071563640954880

 

 You know, I really liked the formal statement they made, and how they'd been advocating for peace.  Then I read about the step father screaming "Burn this b***h down!" to the crowd after the statement, and realized maybe things weren't quite so zen as they appeared.

 

Not that I'm saying I could've handled it any better.  But, yeah, that was unfortunate given the fires that were set.

[umsami]

 You know, I really liked the formal statement they made, and how they'd been advocating for peace.  Then I read about the step father screaming "Burn this b***h down!" to the crowd after the statement, and realized maybe things weren't quite so zen as they appeared.

 

Not that I'm saying I could've handled it any better.  But, yeah, that was unfortunate given the fires that were set.

 

Yes, but IMHO that does not detract from the fact the both of Michael Brown's parents (not step parents) have only advocated for calm.

[EmseB]

 

 

From the comments on they should not shoot to disable, only to kill....I actually find that very troubling.  If that is the case, then there must be a much higher bar when confronting a known unarmed man.  

 

It is a high bar, that's the point.  If one is not prepared to kill someone/thing, one does not draw a gun on them.  That goes for home/self defense, police on the job, hunting, military, etc.  Now maybe a firearm is going to end up descalating a situation because the person on the business end does not actually want to be killed, and generally speaking that would probably be preferable for everyone involved.  But police don't draw their guns on people with the idea that they are going to wound or disable them.  First off, no one is that good of a shot except in the movies (hit a moving target in the leg or arm with a handgun?), secondly (and this goes to the idea that six shots is "excessive") in a situation with a lot of adrenaline (and sometimes mind-altering substances) a shot to "disable" likely won't do anything to someone who is angry enough to be charging at a cop and/or trying to fight someone who has is armed.  Again, this is shown in movies like you shoot someone in the shoulder precisely and they drop their own gun and fall to the floor.  I don't think this is the reality most LEOs are dealing with.  If an officer shoots someone coming at them, they shoot them until they stop coming at them.

 

All of the above is why, even if the officer is wrong in actually drawing his weapon, one should not attempt anything except total compliance with the officer's instructions once he has his gun out.  I fully acknowledge that they are human beings who sometimes make bad decisions, are racist, or go on power trips.  But it is much harder (not impossible, but much harder) for them to make a bad decision ending in the loss of life if someone decides to follow their instructions, especially after the gun is out.

 

As for "known unarmed" I'm not sure how you know that about a person for sure until after the fact.

[Elisabet1]

One thing this story has made very clear is that to many people of color - this is how they feel sending their kids out into the world every day. Fear that they are targets who can be killed by police or armed Zimmeman types without consequence.

This could be said either way. It is way way more common that a white person will be attacked or killed for being white than the other way around. This young man was a large young man. Forensics proved that he was attacking the officer. He was on video attacking the store owner. He was also on drugs. IF my child, regardless of race, choses to go out, use drugs, steal from a store, attack the store owner, run out the street and walk down the middle of the street and then attack a police officer for trying to tell him to stop walking in the middle of the street, then my child, regardless of race, will likely have some consequences. If he makes a police officer, or anyone else, feel their life is threatened, then my child will likely have likewise consequences. Fact is, if this young man had been any other race and the officer had been black, this would not even be in the news. The kid was a thug. He was open and brazen about his actions, his theft, his attacks. Normally, if someone steals, they will try to do it quietly and get away with it. If they get caught, they don't attack the store owner. They might run for it, but they do not stand there attacking the store owner. Then they don't run outside and walk down the middle of the street. They would hide. Every step of the way, this man showed a very threatening demeanor and made it clear to everyone he came in contact with that HE could not be reckoned with and that HE will attack. Anyone defending his actions is just being racist because the ONLY defense I have ever heard for him is he was black. Your race does not give you the right to do what he did. The injuries to the officer, the autopsy reports, everything, shows this young man was attacking the officer. That is not OK and I fully support a person, officer or not, protecting themselves in an attack like that.

[Shellydon]

First off, all of that is Wilson's testimony.  How much is true...who knows.  But let's assume it's all true.  Yes, he has a right to defend himself.  But does he have a right to kill an unarmed man?  Remember, police officers are supposed to be excellent shots.... extremely well trained.  So why the two shots to the head.  They were both 6'4" men.  Brown outweighed him, yes, but Wilson had the gun...the entire time.   He shot him six times (well fired 12 shots, but hit him six times.) The two fatal ones were to the head.  Shoot to disable, but not to kill.  No reason to shoot him in the head.  And those were shots fired from far away (according to the autopsies.)

 

If Wilson had shot Brown in the legs, and Brown had died from loss of blood, it would not be as questionable to me as the shots to the head.  The only reason you shoot somebody in the head is to kill them.  Period.  The other man was unarmed.  If he had been armed, he would have shot at Wilson.  

 

There should have been a trial, with a real prosecutor who advocated for the victim, and a real defense attorney who advocated for the police officer.  There was not.  The Prosecutor never advocated for the victim, never made his case for the victim.   He was, in reality, a defense attorney for Officer Wilson.  He did not do his job.

 

Officers and military are always trained to shoot to kill.  Period. 

[Catwoman]

Except all the locals are saying that they aren't looting or arson and most local businesses have the same - even the McDonald's has said there was no looting, just people going in groups to get milk to wash out tear gas from their eyes (which has set off in residential areas without protesters as well and at reporters).

 

I think you're trying to rewrite history here. There was absolutely both arson and looting.

 

The looting of the liquor store was shown live on television last night. Those looters weren't upset about Michael Brown; they were taking advantage of the situarion. They were laughing as they handed out bottles of liquor to people outside the store - who were rushing to get it and then running off with it. The windows of McDonald's were intentionally broken, and both cars and buildings were intentionally set on fire.

[SKL]

And after Mr. Brown attempted to take possession of the policeman's weapon, he is going to be dealt with as quite capable of trying to kill the officer.  His "unarmed" status (even assuming the cop was confident of this at the time) doesn't count for much if he's trying to get hold of the officer's gun.  He was also quite capable of beating up the cop some more, and no, the police should not have to allow people to do that, gun or no gun.

 

Anyone who is teaching their kids that the cops don't have a right to shoot them as long as they are unarmed needs to amend that message IMO.

[poppy]

Or far more likely, killed by a black person.

 

If your child is killed, does it hurt worse depending on the skin color of who killed him?  Should it?

 

What I said, and what many, many, many parents of color have said, is that parents of black kids are afraid that their children are at risk of being murdered by police without consequence. You can respect that or not. Sounds like you do not think that it's relevant or worth considering.  OK.

 

For others, sharing this pre-Ferguson story:

http://gawker.com/what-black-parents-tell-their-sons-about-the-police-1624412625

[Scrub Jay]

The injuries to the officer

 

Darren Wilson looked barely injured....  http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/darren-wilson-picture-michael-brown-shooting

 

[SKL]

What I said, and what many, many, many parents of color have said, is that parents of black kids are afraid that their children are at risk of being murdered by police without consequence. You can respect that or not. Sounds like you do not think that it's relevant or worth considering.  OK.

 

You said they are afraid of sending their kids out each day.  Personally if I'm going to worry about sending my kids out, I'm mainly worried about the things most likely to happen.  I don't spend much time worrying about things that happen rarely when there is a pretty high death rate from something else.

 

People who exaggerate the risk of one thing while downplaying a much bigger danger can make things worse for their kids.

[GailV]

Darren Wilson looked barely injured.... http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/darren-wilson-picture-michael-brown-shooting

 

Weirdly enough, Dh often has pictures taken of various bruises and injuries (yeah, there's a story or two there). I've sort of come to the conclusion the photographing injuries is like photographing food - if it's not your professional niche it really doesn't turn out showing what you think it does.

[SKL]

Yes, you would probably not be suited for that profession then, because that's a very important part of their job. And being so scared that you're a walking target sort of plays in to the whole problem, iykwim.

 

Right, but especially after the whole "F the cops" rallying that has been going on there for half a week etc.

 

[zoobie]

Weirdly enough, Dh often has pictures taken of various bruises and injuries (yeah, there's a story or two there). I've sort of come to the conclusion the photographing injuries is like photographing food - if it's not your professional niche it really doesn't turn out showing what you think it does.

The photos were taken as evidence, presumably by someone who should know how to do that.

[Scrub Jay]

Weirdly enough, Dh often has pictures taken of various bruises and injuries (yeah, there's a story or two there). I've sort of come to the conclusion the photographing injuries is like photographing food - if it's not your professional niche it really doesn't turn out showing what you think it does.

 

These were the photos for evidence.  I think they know what they are doing...

 

[SKL]

I think the trying to get the cop's gun was more an issue than the punching - though that was not a great idea either.

 

Also, did anyone else think it odd that the cop was punched on the right side of his face?  Isn't that the side that would be more inside the car?